Squaring the Culture




"...and I will make justice the plumb line, and righteousness the level;
then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
and the waters will overflow the secret place."
Isaiah 28:17

07/25/2009 (3:00 pm)

The Holocaust Begins

buchenwald16

I argued back in February that the weakened life ethic produced by abortion and by the selfishness of the Boomer generation, a decade of economic hardship, and the coming collapse of Social Security, will combine to produce mass killing of the elderly, first as “voluntary” euthanasia and later (but not much later) becoming a lot less voluntary. Several events in the advocacy of President Obama’s national health care scheme are vindicating my prediction.

The current House resolution for health care reform, H.R. 3200, contains a clause entitled “Advance care planning consultation” (Section 1233) requiring senior citizens to meet with a health professional every five years to discuss living wills and limits on measures to be taken when life-threatening conditions occur. Why a state-employed health professional? Why not a private attorney? Why is it required by the state? The clear answer is that with the state paying for medical care, ending life sooner reduces expenses for the national system. Patient’s rights advocates correctly note that the measure is likely to pressure seniors into making life-limiting legal decisions they might not otherwise make. In fact, that’s the point of the consultations.

Erick Erickson from RedState also circulated an email message on Friday reporting an overheard conversation between an aide to Rep. Paul Tonko (D, NY) and an alleged lobbyist regarding the House health care bill. The conversation included the observation that “probably the best part of the bill is the increase in Hospice care which will solve the prolonging of life issue.” Hospice care, as opposed to hospital care, limits access to life-extending technological procedures. To claim that hospice care “solves the prolonging of life issue” suggests that a national health plan will cover hospice care but not hospital care for certain, life-threatening illnesses, with the result that patients will be required by the state to die quietly rather than prolong their lives.

It’s really been pretty obvious that that’s where we’re heading from the discussions of health care “rationing” that we’ve been hearing. Erick at RedState.com listed several prominent progressives who have publicly advanced the weird survival calculus that supports consciously weighing dollar cost against survival odds; Peter Singer wrote just 10 days ago advocating a specific scheme, accompanied by an incredible flood of disingenuous rationalizations supporting the ethics of such a scheme.

They argue that since the calculation is taking place already, there is no reason the state should not engage in it. What they omit is the fact that whatever such calculations take place today, take place in the mind of the person whose survival is on the line, or among that person’s responsible family members. It is one thing for an individual to decide that his own wealth should be saved for his children rather than spent prolonging his life; it is another thing entirely for the state to make that assessment. The former is self-sacrifice; the latter is murder.

The moves to limit care for the elderly give the lie to the entire premise for national health care. Advocates for Obama’s plan argue that the reason for a national program is that some individuals cannot obtain care. Their solution does not provide care for more people, it simply shifts the right to decide who gets care from the market to the government. Just as many people will be denied care, but executive-branch bureaucrats get to decide which ones. I cannot see this as an improvement.

The holocaust has been predictable for decades. We’re just now beginning to see the pieces of it come together. As can be predicted by anybody familiar with 20th century history, wherever Marxian notions appear, mass deaths are likely to follow.

We are so screwed…

« « ObAmateur President Disses Cops | Main | August Rush » »

14 Comments »

July 25, 2009 @ 7:11 pm #

There will almost certainly be a racial aspect of this as well. A huge number of the elderly are white, so this is an easy way to eliminate many white people from the population, thus shifting racial balance in the country. Many, if not most, of the employees of this vast new system will be minorities making the health care decisions for elderly white Americans, and I don’t think they will be very sympathetic at all. It is another way to “get whitey.”

As an elderly white man, I am feeling very uncomfortable right now, to say the least.

July 25, 2009 @ 9:24 pm #

I’m not elderly (yet), but I’m very uncomfortable also. The more I learn about this, the more of a sense of unreality hits me.

I truly cannot believe that in this country something of this nature can get jammed through the system in a matter of weeks or a few months, without people really even understanding what is in play here. I cannot believe that if the majority of the people in this country had any idea where this is going, that they would allow this to happen. Are we thst far gone, that fast? This guy was elected less than a year ago.

What can the Peggy Noonans and that ilk be thinking now about what they have helped conceive? Probably irrelevant to them since they are part of the elite political/journalist class who will not have to worry about these plebian issues impacting their lives.

July 26, 2009 @ 5:35 am #

The fact is, Obama is just like Hitler. If only the free market had been allowed to work we would all be fine, but now he will personally have power of life or death over us all. And if you are white…..

July 26, 2009 @ 6:08 am #

Perhaps this serious topic is not the time for levity, but responding to RM’s question about the chattering classes… Back in March, Doug Ross posted a bunch of pics of Obama voters holding up “We’re sorry” signs, and the list included this shot of David Brooks.

July 26, 2009 @ 12:41 pm #

Already we have ,in the case of pregnant women, the practice of using sonagrams and any supposed indicator (highlights in the picture) of birth defects being used to nudge parents in the direction of aborting.
It truelly is a brave new world.

July 26, 2009 @ 7:40 pm #

Interesting factoid: Did you know that before (and maybe during) WWII, the wives of servicemen were not covered by health insurance?

I know this because I have a 90 y.o. friend who actually held a gun on a surgeon to coerce him into performing a life-saving operation on his wife.

(My friend paid the surgeon back over the next several years.)

July 27, 2009 @ 2:26 pm #

It looks like the health care bill is having trouble in committee:

</

July 27, 2009 @ 2:31 pm #

Doh!

July 27, 2009 @ 2:33 pm #

Sorry, I can’t seem to get the tags to work. You’ll have copy and paste.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-healthcare-talks-break-down-in-anger-2009-07-24.html

July 28, 2009 @ 2:50 pm #

I disagree on the racial aspect of things. Certainly Totalitarian regimes have used racial/class hatreds in the past to get to power, but I see much more the use of class than race in this particular instance.

Looking at various totalitarian regimes, I think most of these uses of class and race have been merely a pretext to get power. Most will not pursue it to the detriment of their own power or security. (Notable exception here is Nazism, where they obviously diverted material and personnel in a time of war to care out their atrocities.)

No the danger here is exactly as Phil described, the dehumanization of the People. Once the people no longer have a personal face (as in the case of abortion) or are seen as not furthering the cause (the old), they are useless to the maw of the revolution.

The only solace we can take is that the Revolution ALWAYS eats it’s own.

Very cheery thought, I know.

July 28, 2009 @ 5:06 pm #

I’ve spent the last couple hours trying to figure out Section 1233(ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION) of HR 3200, and have come up with more questions than answers.

First of all, that section modifies 42 U.S.C. 1395x, Sec. 1861, which is entitled: Part E—Miscellaneous Provisions, DEFINITIONS OF SERVICES, INSTITUTIONS, ETC. (Sorry for the all caps – I’m cutting and pasting from the documents.)

On first read, it looked to me that HR3200 was simply adding ‘advance care planning consultation’ as a ‘screening procedure’ which Medicare would cover once every five years. Whether it’s voluntary or not, I couldn’t find any guidance on that in the bill.

But curiously, ‘end of life planning’ is already in the Social Security law (linked above), and is clearly voluntary. Here’s what the older section says:

Initial Preventive Physical Examination

(ww)(1) The term “initial preventive physical examination” means physicians’ services consisting of a physical examination (including measurement of height, weight, body mass index,[474] and blood pressure[475]) with the goal of health promotion and disease detection and includes education, counseling, and referral with respect to screening and other preventive services described in paragraph (2) and end-of-life planning (as defined in paragraph (3))upon the agreement with the individual [476], but does not include clinical laboratory tests.

(2) The screening and other preventive services described in this paragraph include the following:

(A) Pneumococcal, influenza, and hepatitis B vaccine and administration under subsection (s)(10).

(I omitted a whole bunch of screening tests here –John)

(N)[479] Additional preventive services (as defined in subsection (ddd)(1)).

(3)[480] For purposes of paragraph (1), the term “end-of-life planning” means verbal or written information regarding—

(A) an individual’s ability to prepare an advance directive in the case that an injury or illness causes the individual to be unable to make health care decisions; and

(B) whether or not the physician is willing to follow the individual’s wishes as expressed in an advance directive.

So why do they need new language if it’s already in there? Is it because the new language doesn’t include the words, “upon the agreement with the individual”? And is this older language deleted somewhere? I couldn’t find that.

[476]P.L. 110-275, §101(b)(1)(A)(iii), inserted “and end-of-life planning (as defined in paragraph (3)) upon the agreement with the individual”, applicable to services furnished on or after January 1, 2009.

Now here’s the ironic thing. End-of-life planning was originally added in Charles Rangels’ bill, H.R.6331, which was signed by President Bush one year ago.

What a mess (hope the HTML works)…

July 31, 2009 @ 7:22 am #

Hey Phil,

I’ve been reading the bill all morning also, and like our friend John Cooper here, I’m having a hard time parsing the whole thing.

Can you quote where Section 1233 mandates that people participate in Advanced Care Planning (or link to someone who did)? From what I can figure out, it looks only to mandate the funding for those who WANT to discuss living will issues/end of life planning with their doctors…which appears to be a worthy concept for funding. I can’t see anything that is involuntary in there.

July 31, 2009 @ 9:42 am #

I’ve been reading the bill all morning also, and like our friend John Cooper here, I’m having a hard time parsing the whole thing.

Aside from consideration of whether I’ve correctly assessed it or not, just give me an opinion:

If the measure is that difficult to parse by intelligent individuals like you and Mr. Cooper, ought it be passed?

July 31, 2009 @ 5:54 pm #

Oh heavens no, Phil!

But I wouldn’t want to be accused of arguing against it on false grounds. If the “holocaust” argument against this bill is false (I can’t find anything there requiring late life planning…at least as best as I can understand), then there are certainly other grounds on which to oppose it…not least because it is attempting far too much to solve the problem of the uninsured.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>